Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirius
I stepped back from the thread when he started to post quotes i felt he had no bothered to read first.
The chances of us having an incident anything like that of Japan is negligible.
Tim do you think we will be able within the next 25 to 40 years to provide all the power we need from renewable ?? Because i don't and gas is running out the same as oil, So nuclear is the only option for power in the amount we need now and going forward. The nimby's complain about nuclear then complain about wind then complain about gas ???? i some times wonder if they want us back in caves
|
Even if the chance is small, then it is still unacceptable due to the massive destruction a nuclear accident causes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_accident
There have been many radiation leaks into the Irish sea, making it the most radioactive sea in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...nts_by_country
There are other alternatives as I have mentioned before, including geothermal, hydroelectric, wave power, tidal power, and biomass.
I personally don't care about the nimbys, as they don't live in the real world. But what I do care about is the lives of people that could be lost for many years to come, following a nuclear accident, due to radiation.
---------- Post added at 09:53 ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh
Everything has a hazard attached to it ,if we followed you risk free mantra that you keep spouting we would all be living in caves .I would maybe accept your arguments against nuclear power as valid if they where based on something such as human error or faulty equipment which is far more likely than earthquakes or tsunamis
|
You really need to read the thread before you comment. Earthquakes and tsunamis are just two of the risks. If you look at this link you will see that there are many risks involved with nuclear power:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...nts_by_country
I'm certainly not risk averse, otherwise I wouldn't do my job. But as long as there are alternatives, then due to the destruction caused by nuclear accidents, then the risk is unacceptable. If the UK was far bigger, and less densely populated, then you could stick a couple of nuclear power stations 100's of miles from civilisation, and they wouldn't be a problem...although the radiation cloud from Chernobyl was supposed to reach Cumbria. Although personally I think it was just convenient for the government to use as a cover up for yet another leak at Sellafield.
---------- Post added at 10:00 ---------- Previous post was at 09:53 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirius
Tad over the top and reminds me of "Will someone save the Children" whilst running around screaming with there hands in the air 
1% chance  |
How many leaks have there been at Sellafield?? More than you think, and a lot more than we are told about.
And how many people do you think have cancers, or other illnesses caused by radiation due to leaks from power stations, many years after the leaks?